Why Burna Boy and Taylor Swift Spent Millions to Buy Back Their Masters

In the music industry, "Masters" is one of the most recurring words. You hear it in song lyrics, interviews, and label disputes. This word has recently made headlines in Nigerian music after music megastar Burna Boy’s catalogue purchase from his previous label, Aristokrat Records, became the subject of litigation.

The Grammy winner is among the artists who have forked out top dollar to purchase their masters in a move that conveys a desire to stay in charge of all aspects of their career.

For those who might not be familiar with the concept of masters in music, here’s a simple definition. Masters are the original recording of a song. It's the main file from which other copies, variants, and modifications are made. The lyrics, melodies, and production combine to make a final song. It's that final song in its finished format that's the master.

Masters are quite valuable, that’s why labels and financiers invest heavily in return for owning the masters of songs and albums with the hope of recouping their investment. Yet, this obvious value doesn’t entirely explain why artists take the trouble of buying back their masters in what sometimes becomes a case of litigation and power tussle for ownership.

Behind this move to reclaim their masters are business, personal, and creative reasons that inform the decision.

Recently, rapper French Montana caused a stir online with a statement he made about royalties of his diamond hit during an appearance on the Drinking Champs Podcast. According to him, he’s yet to get a royalty check from his mega hit single ‘Unforgettable’ featuring Swae Lee. 

This came as a rude shock for fans and observers that the rapper was yet to make a dime from a song that is 11X platinum and has accumulated 2.7 billion streams on Spotify and 1.8B views on YouTube.

The basic explanation of the French Montana situation is that the label had yet to fully recoup the funds invested in marketing the song to global hit status. The label owns the masters and will keep getting the streaming royalties from which all expenses, both marketing and whatever advance that was paid to him, will be deducted before French Montana can get a royalty cheque.

It’s this reality of ownership that’s shaping the structuring of labels and distribution of contracts by some of the world's top music stars who negotiate the ownership of their masters.

It’s common in label deals for the label to own the masters for a lengthy period as a guarantee of their investment in the artist. This is why, when some artists become successful or want to part ways with a label, they often attempt to buy back their masters. Jay Z, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and Frank Ocean are some artists who have bought back their masters. 

Whoever owns a master's practically controls the fate of that catalogue. They can use it as collateral to secure financing, determine the split and cost for those looking to license or sample the masters, or even sell it off, and in some cases, like that of Taylor Swift and former label Big Machine Label Group, without the permission of the artist.

Artists buy back their masters to control what happens to their work and manage access to their intellectual property. This is why Taylor Swift was locked in a bitter battle with Music Executive and Businessman Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holding after BMLG sold the masters of her first 5 albums to him without her consent.

After attempting and failing to repurchase it from Braun, who sold it to Shamrock Capital for more than $300 million in 2020,  the megastar resorted to re-recording her first 6 albums, with four getting released online as “Taylor’s version”.

In 2025, Billboard reported that Taylor Swift was finally able to repurchase her catalogue in a deal reportedly worth $360 million. 

Music catalogues are becoming even more valuable in the equity market, where venture capitalists and financiers are paying hundreds of millions for the catalogues of famous music stars.

In 2021, the legendary Bruce Springsteen sold his catalogue to Sony Music Group in a deal reportedly worth $550 million. In 2023, Pop megastar Justin Bieber sold part of his catalogue to Hipgnosis in a deal reportedly worth $200 million.

More recently, music star Britney Spears was reported to have sold her entire catalogue to independent music publisher Primary Wave for around $200 million.

The huge fees music catalogues can command, especially for musicians like Burna Boy whose career has evolved excepyionally makes repurchasing his masters for a potential future resale an attractive option, especially when he owns his masters.

In the music industry, musicians don’t only boast about owning their masters; the lack of ownership has been used as a shaming tool, especially in hip hop.

In 2025, Rick Ross shamed 50 Cent for not owning his masters. Megan Thee Stallion has boasted about owning her masters. 21 Savage, on the track ‘3 AM in Glenhood’ boasted about not caring how much he makes for the label because he owns his masters. 

There’s also the famous story of how the late King of Pop Michael Jackson acquired Eminem’s catalogue in 2007 as revenge after the rapper poked fun at his legal troubles and plastic surgeries on the 2004 track ‘Just Lost It’.

A combination of ownership, creative control, and a marker of status symbol probably informs Burna Boy’s decision to repurchase his catalogue from Aristokrat Records underwhom he released his first two LPs.

Both superstars have bought back their catalogue in a desire for ownership and control. Taylor Swift’s battle to reclaim her catalogue is, however, quite different from Burna Boy’s situation. 

For one, she claimed her former label Big Machine Label Group sold her catalogue (first 6 albums) to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings without her permission in a 2019 deal that sparked backlash from her fans.

Taylor Swift didn’t hold back in voicing her frustration over the deal, and she described Bruan’s ownership as the “worst possible scenario” while accusing him of "manipulation and bullying.”

Scooter Braun didn’t hold the catalogue for long as he sold it for a $300 million to Shamrock Capital in 2020, and from whom Taylor Swift acquired the catalogue in a deal worth $360 million in 2025. 

The Burna Boy situation, on the other hand, involved a purchase of his catalogue released under Aristokrat Records, under whom he was signed between 2010 and 2014. The 2024 sale, which is reportedly worth millions of dollars, saw Burna Boy, through his company On A Spaceship, take control of the albums and songs he released during his time with Aristokrat Records.

The issue that has arisen from the sale is from an action instituted in a Port Harcourt High Court by a company called 960 Music Group who claims to own 40% of Aristokrat Records.

According to the filing, 960 Music Group is asking the court to void the catalogue sale to Burna Boy as it was neither aware of nor informed of the deal. The company is arguing that the sale is a bridge to their investments and interest in the catalogue.

It’s not left to 960 Music Group to provide evidence to back their claim and prove that Aristokrat Records doesn’t have the power to make such a sale. In its defence, Aristokrat Records would have to prove that the sale was in line with the company’s policy. 

The court would also consider the nature of the agreement between both parties, the scope of the label’s management and operation, as it pertains to the legislation governing corporate entities in Nigeria.